Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Tom Potter, you'd win more battles if you were part of something bigger.
Next: What is the biggest size of Molecule?
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Jan 2010 17:38 On 1/1/10 4:03 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: > On Jan 1, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1/1/10 3:14 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:46:10 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> >>>> Actually greenhouse gasses, by definition, "trap" heat >>>> so the earth doesn't cool so much. >> >>> But you are not able to describe in your own >>> words exactly how they do this and where the >>> heat is stored, how much, for how long? >> >> Here are some resources so that you may do a bit of self >> education concerning the greenhouse gas effect. >> >> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures& Greenhouse Gases >> >> http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scien... >> >> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect >> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm >> >> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect >> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf > > Sam, > > You have my deepest sympathy. I can't even imagine how frustrating it > must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say > how or why. I, like anybody else, can be wrong... I'm just trying to get folks to look at the science and the data.
From: I M on 1 Jan 2010 20:48 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:23:42 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/1/10 3:14 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:46:10 -0600, Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> > >>> Actually greenhouse gasses, by definition, "trap" heat >>> so the earth doesn't cool so much. >> >> >> But you are not able to describe in your own >> words exactly how they do this and where the >> heat is stored, how much, for how long? >> > > Here are some resources so that you may do a bit of self > education concerning the greenhouse gas effect. > > Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases > >http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm > > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm > > Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf You first; http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/794323929-72453084/content~content=a788582859~db=all :-)
From: I M on 1 Jan 2010 21:54 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:38:32 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/1/10 4:03 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: >> On Jan 1, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 1/1/10 3:14 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:46:10 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> Actually greenhouse gasses, by definition, "trap" heat >>>>> so the earth doesn't cool so much. >>> >>>> But you are not able to describe in your own >>>> words exactly how they do this and where the >>>> heat is stored, how much, for how long? >>> >>> Here are some resources so that you may do a bit of self >>> education concerning the greenhouse gas effect. >>> >>> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures& Greenhouse Gases >>> >>> http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scien... >>> >>> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect >>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm >>> >>> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect >>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf >> >> Sam, >> >> You have my deepest sympathy. I can't even imagine how frustrating it >> must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say >> how or why. > > I, like anybody else, can be wrong... I'm just trying to get > folks to look at the science and the data. Don't you mean part of the science and data? I have been trying for more than two years to get people to see that GHGs are what cools the atmosphere, and you dance around that and pretend it isn't there. Polly want a cracker?
From: I M on 1 Jan 2010 22:06 On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 14:14:03 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry <pomerado(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 31 2009, 2:16 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: >> >> Only one way to convince me, real easy, >> just give me a year warmer than 1998. > >2005. > >2007. > >Maybe 2009 - the numbers are not yet in. Dream on. http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/HadCRUT3.jpg I wish it would get warmer, cold and snow can make it colder, and colder causes burning more fossil fuel, so warming is good-good, win-win. If the new literature that shows more CO2 cools the atmosphere is right, then what, reduce fossil fuel use to prevent cooling?
From: mrbawana2u on 1 Jan 2010 23:07
On Jan 1, 5:38 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/1/10 4:03 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > > > > On Jan 1, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1/1/10 3:14 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: > > >>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:46:10 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> > >>>> Actually greenhouse gasses, by definition, "trap" heat > >>>> so the earth doesn't cool so much. > > >>> But you are not able to describe in your own > >>> words exactly how they do this and where the > >>> heat is stored, how much, for how long? > > >> Here are some resources so that you may do a bit of self > >> education concerning the greenhouse gas effect. > > >> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures& Greenhouse Gases > > >>http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scien.... > > >> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect > >> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm > > >> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect > >> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf > > > Sam, > > > You have my deepest sympathy. I can't even imagine how frustrating it > > must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say > > how or why. > > I, like anybody else, can be wrong... I'm just trying to get > folks to look at the science and the data. ======================================= the scientific evidence for AGW is remarkably weak. At Icecap, Lee Gerhard, geologist and reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sums up the key scientific evidence with admirable brevity: It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen. Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know: The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history. Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant. There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect. We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes: Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity. The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world. Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature. Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the "hockey stick" graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century. During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change. Contrary to many public statements: Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change. Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30- year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms. Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes. The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records. Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century. The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs. Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word "ever" is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean "in the last 20 years," or "the last 70 years." "Ever" means the last 4.5 billion years. For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, "How long is ever?" The answer is since 1979. And then ask, "Is it still warming?" The answer is unequivocally "No." Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word "unprecedented" cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years. ============================================================= The "Science" Mantra By Thomas Sowell Science is one of the great achievements of the human mind and the biggest reason why we live not only longer but more vigorously in our old age, in addition to all the ways in which it provides us with things that make life easier and more enjoyable. Like anything valuable, science has been seized upon by politicians and ideologues, and used to forward their own agendas. This started long ago, as far back as the 18th century, when the Marquis de Condorcet coined the term "social science" to describe various theories he favored. In the 19th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels distinguished their own brand of socialism as "scientific socialism." By the 20th century, all sorts of notions wrapped themselves in the mantle of "science." "Global warming" hysteria is only the latest in this long line of notions, whose main argument is that there is no argument, because it is "science." The recently revealed destruction of raw data at the bottom of the global warming hysteria, as well as revelations of attempts to prevent critics of this hysteria from being published in leading journals, suggests that the disinterested search for truth-- the hallmark of real science-- has taken a back seat to a political crusade. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mantra__99638.html we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the biggest names in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how the whole carbon trading scheme works. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?print=1 |